On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> answered]
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > A) Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be
> > >
> So drop this bullshit veto thing. There is no reason to have this.
I read this thread very occasionnally and I usually pick up posts my
people I respect for their ability to express their opinions quietly
and without the need of flaming.
Hence, I have to admit that I'm really surprised by this
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I probably
wouldn't allow an MMIX port into the archive even if it sat up a
Frank Küster wrote:
Sorry, I'm going to continue not responding to your other question for
a little while yet; for reasons I expect'll become obvious.
I imagine my phrasing above was probably a little obscure for people who
don't have English as their first language.
You mean, because he pissed y
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:01:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >>a) Present me with a picture ID signed by a person in NM, of
> >> the DAM, or the DPL, or K people whose keys
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
> This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
> 90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
> hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
> remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
[Sven Luther]
>> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
>> be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
> people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocrati
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:43:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 2)
> a) provide a signed email from the DAM or the DPL stating that
>the key with a given ID and finger print belongs to a DD
A completely hypothetical (of course!) case: what if a developer is in
gid=Debian,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > > A) Do
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
> It is probably better to allow the DPL to veto the inclusion, and
> document that he is required to ask the porters, the ftp masters and
> the release team before making up his
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> schrieb:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:21:25 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:
>>> b) show me, in person, two picture ID's issued by a governemt
>>> that demonstrate who you are, a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > > indepen
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
personally more in favour of mips* as release archs than some others
because you're doing such a good job.
Che
Enrico Zini wrote:
This is to introduce the topic. My question is: what vision do you
have for the future of: Custom Debian Distributions; partly-derived
distributions such as Ubuntu; and forks such as Knoppix or Linspire?
First, for the record, my response to LWN on the Ubuntu question was:
>> So
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
> >infrastructure,
> >not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
>
> This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
a) Present me with a picture ID signed by a person in NM, of
the DAM, or the DPL, or K people whose keys are in the
keyring, AND
What is K?
1. G
[Matthew Garrett]
> Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
> technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the posit
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instanc
> > How can the tech-ctte override a developer by not acting?
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> No, the question is whether a developer (by never acting) can avoid
> tech-ctte review of his work.
What work?
A developer who never acts would have no work to rev
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What work?
>
> A developer who never acts would have no work to review. The technical
> committee would thus never have any reason to override any decisions
> this developer made -- because there would be no such decisions.
I have in mind, for example,
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What work?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have in mind, for example, the ifupdown script. The maintainer has
> not made a maintainer upload for years, and so maintenance of the
> package has been proceding by
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As described, this is an administrative issue, rather than a technical
> issue.
Yes, that's correct. At present there is no reason for tech-ctte to
be involved. My example was poorly chosen.
> Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technic
Hi,
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE DEBIAN PROJECT LEADER ELECTION 2005
= === = === === == === ==
Votinge period starts 00:00:01 UTC on March 21st, 2005.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on April 10th, 2005.
This vote is being conduct
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technical issues,
> and since the maintainer of that package is one of the DPL candidates, I
> think you should make an effort to be clear about what you're saying here.
This is a different question, and
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:26:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> My question is: when there is a technical issue, but one developer
> refuses to discuss it with tech-ctte or anyone else, can tech-ctte get
> involved?
Yes.
> It does, but I recall in the past being told that tech-ctte doesn
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony is the "maintainer" of this package, and has refused either to
allow adoption or a co-maintainer arrangement with interested partes.
This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in co-mai
Anthony Towns writes:
> This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
> ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
> co-maintenance.
I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn't
really matter what "in most cases" means, what matters is whe
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
On March 15th I asked each candidate to indicate a frank evaluation of
their tasks and time for the job of DPL given their existing
commitments. I did this because I think this an extremely important
criterion: after all, it is a question asked and answered every year,
and which candidate platfor
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:35:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson: eleven packages, two other jobs
> nine in good shape, two could be better.
> other jobs in good shape (though one, policy, might not really exist)
I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X
Hi,
The ballot neglected to mention that it should not be
encrypted, since devotee does not yet deal with encrypted
ballots. Encrypting your ballot will just result in it being
rejected. Sorry for not mentioning this earlier.
manoj
--
A fool must now and then be right by chanc
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X.Org 6.7.0
> was released in April 2004, 6.8.0 in August 2004 (IIRC), and there have
> been two point releases of 6.8.x since. Despite the availability of
> xorg packages, Debian is still languish
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
co-maintenance.
I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance.
Well, from your other mail it looks like you're more i
Anthony Towns writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> >>This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
> >>ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
> >>co-maintenance.
> > I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance.
>
> Wel
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:20 18:35 -0800]:
> I post this now so that the information I have researched may be
> available to the voters, having waited until the end of the
> campaigning period to give each candidate a fully fair opportunity to
> answer for themselves.
It
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:20 18:35 -0800]:
> > I post this now so that the information I have researched may be
> > available to the voters, having waited until the end of the
> > campaigning period to give each candidate a fully
On Sunday, 20 March 2005 20:50, Erinn Clark wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:20 18:35 -0800]:
> > I post this now so that the information I have researched may be
> > available to the voters, having waited until the end of the
> > campaigning period to give each candidate
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:29:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X.Org 6.7.0
> > was released in April 2004, 6.8.0 in August 2004 (IIRC), and there have
> > been two point releases of 6.8.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:19:04PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:29:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X.Org 6.7.0
> > > was released in April 2004, 6.8.0 in A
Wesley J Landaker wrote:
I don't see anything like that in the constitution--in fact, there isn't
even anything in there about a "Compaign Period", only about a perioud
during which no candidates can be nominated, and a note that candidates
*should* use this time for campaigning.
The go-to guy f
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I should have noted that xfree86 is not up-to-date with upstream as
> > you indicate, and I'm sorry for the oversight.
>
> That's a bit unfair. X.Org is a fork and so it's not obvious that Debian
> should switch; newer versions of XFree86 (such as 4.
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's pretty obvious that Debian should switch. Something about
> support for a hojillion newer cards that is not in XFree86,
> Composite/Damage/Fixes (not in XFree86), supported by all other major
> vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you m
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:27:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it's pretty obvious that Debian should switch. Something about
> > support for a hojillion newer cards that is not in XFree86,
> > Composite/Damage/Fixes (not in XFree86), su
On Friday 18 March 2005 5:21 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> That may be because he's made the mistakes and learned from them.
> If he [can convince us he] won't repeat them, so much the better.
I'm all for giving people space to learn but isn't the cost a bit high? Will
we allow Jimmy the same err
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
> > ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
> > co-maintenance.
>
> I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn'
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I should have noted that xfree86 is not up-to-date with upstream as
> > > you indicate, and I'm sorry for the oversight.
> >
> > That's a bit unfair. X.Org is a fork and so it
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:25:35 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> Wesley J Landaker wrote:
>> I don't see anything like that in the constitution--in fact, there
>> isn't even anything in there about a "Compaign Period", only about
>> a perioud during which no candidates can be nominated, and a note
>>
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> > I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
>
> You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
Which indeed does not change my statement. All this (our De
On Sunday 20 March 2005 8:35 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Serves SPI. Received criticism for past performance as treasurer,
> but recent work has been good.
This assertion is based on at best incomplete information. You have no
knowledge as to the current status of the filing system, w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes:
> While it is true that there is nothing explicit in the
> constitution prohibiting campaigning before or after the period
> mentioned when candidates are exhorted to introduce themselves and
> their platforms, there has always been
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking
> with XFree86? If you can, please do so.
Yes, until sarge is released. Of course that's Branden and the XSF's
decision, in consultation with the release managers
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This assertion is based on at best incomplete information. You have no
> knowledge as to the current status of the filing system, workflows for
> tracking and managing paperwork between Jimmy and Branden or any other
> detailed aspect of the accounti
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:33:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking
> > with XFree86? If you can, please do so.
>
> Yes, until sarge is released. Of course that's
56 matches
Mail list logo
